Supported by
By Vanessa Friedman
There is still a position to be filled in the field of fashion. On Monday, Tom Ford (the brand) announced the departure of Peter Hawkings as artistic director after just over a year. This company now joins the ranks of Chanel, Givenchy and Dries Van Noten, all of them persevering without a designer or genuine design direction beyond rinsing and repetition.
This is an unprecedented state of uncertainty, aggravated by the fact that, at the same time, there are hypotheses about many other brands that still have artistic directors, although the rumors do not reveal it. Never.
A pattern of the theories that circulate:
Sarah Burton, Alexander McQueen’s longtime designer who left last year, will definitely be going to Givenchy. Soon. Everybody says so.
Hedi Slimane leaves Céline one hundred percent to sign for Chanel and be repositioned through Michael Rider, defeated by Ralph Lauren. (It doesn’t occur to us that the move was scheduled for June and Slimane is not only still at Céline, but Bruno Pavlovsky, Chanel’s head of fashion, has still rejected the idea. ) Or maybe it is. Does Mr. Slimane go to Burberry? They have just repositioned the general directors. Who knows? If there is smoke, there is fire.
John Galliano leaves Margiela and goes to Chanel. No, he hopes, Dior. No, wait, Fendi.
Kim Jones, most recently in women’s Fendi, is replaced by Alessandro Michele. (Oops, that didn’t happen. Mr. Michele went to paint at Valentino. ) Well, through Pierpaolo Piccioli. By Maria Grazia Chiuri, who happens to be Dior’s artistic director of women’s fashion. By [fill in designer name].
Enough.
This kind of unbridled and unfettered speculation, while rarely entertaining in the realm of fantasy football, is rooted in nothing more than whispers and wishful thinking, or the product of leaks strategically used as a tactic in a contract negotiation. And in the end Today, it’s not smart for anyone. Not for the designers involved, not for the large number of people who paint for them, not for the consumers who buy their garments, or who simply stick to the celebrities who wear them on social media. media and are therefore influenced through those garments.
Insecurity leads to boring, even bad fashion. In most cases, this leads designers to go with the safe option, the one that worked well last time: the mundane. It mitigates crazy concepts (why not?) that adjust what everyone needs. to use.
And yet, the chaos of the current situation, which even social media enthusiasts are tearing their hair out, turns out to reflect the general state of chaos in the world, the shrinking attention span of the social media era, and the truth that, like fashion. In itself, it has entertainment, the rotation of designers has in itself a spectator sport.
We are having retrieving the content of the article.
Allow JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience as we determine access. If you’re in player mode, log out and log in to your Times account or subscribe to the full Times.
Thank you for your patience as we determine access.
Already subscribed? Access.
Do you want all the Times? Subscribe.
Advert